Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
28 program managers are addressing the challenge of being over- solicited for the relatively small (compared to other FTA public transit programs) amount of funding available for a service that could have significant impacts. In the surveys, 70%, or 35 of 50 respondents, were oversubscribed; 11 of the 50 respondents intentionally imple- mented program requirements to control or limit applicants. Some states supplement the Section 5310 funding available for applicants with state funds in an effort to grow the program. States also some- times choose not to take the administrative funds out of their total Section 5310 allocation so more funding is available for subrecip- ients. Still other recipients actively seek to reduce the number of applicants they get through a variety of coordinated solutions such as regional administrators/mobility managers or purchase-of-service contracts. Coordinated planning is generally seen in a positive light by Sec- tion 5310 program administrators, as the plans promote continuity of transportation service priorities over time. Coordination means demonstrably different things across the states, with some focusing on consolidating services to reduce duplication, some working to build efficient regional structures within the administrative frame- work, and others facilitating the harmonious addition of subrecipient programs to expand access. Given the wide range of approaches revealed through the survey results, the next chapter focuses on a few programs that have imple- mented program management approaches that are unique or rep- resent some of the philosophies frequently noted in the survey as bringing local success. CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES 4.1 Introduction Understanding peer programs that have successfully implemented various phases of coordination and consolidation in their Sec- tion 5310 program management is helpful in developing improved policies, practices, and oversight. The following case studies include information pertaining to policies and procedures of five statewide programs and three programs in UZAs. The case studies each high- light aspects of the Section 5310 program that are effectively solv- ing a state or local need. The diversity of the case studies is also reflective of the wide variety of program management strategies employed across the country. The selection of case studies was developed following the national survey of Section 5310 program managers discussed in Chapter 3. Case studies were selected from the survey respondents who identi- fied the following three criteria in their survey responses: 1. The applications received for Section 5310 projects exceed avail- able funding 2. The state or UZA designated recipient has initiated policy or administrative changes to reduce the number of Section 5310 subrecipients 3. The designated recipient has transferred funding between geo- graphic categories to address funding shortages To ensure broad geographic representation, selected case studies also represent Section 5310 programs from each of the census regions identified in Chapter 3. The selected programs were: ⢠Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Southwest ⢠Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Midwest ⢠New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), Northeast ⢠Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments (OKI), Midwest ⢠Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), South ⢠Utah Transit Authority (UTA), West ⢠Valley Regional Transit and COMPASS, West ⢠Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), South Program managers from each organization participated in one- on-one interviews and shared information about the decisions that have changed or improved their program administration process. Defining characteristics included program policies and procedures, coordinated planning, project selection and grant oversight, staffing, vehicle procurement, and performance metrics and outcomes. Inter- views were conducted over phone and videoconference, and data was collected from the FTA, from agency annual and supplemental reports, and from agency websites to supplement interviews. 4.2 Comparison of Case Studies Table 7 displays the Section 5310 funds apportioned to case study participants. The five states are clustered around the national average apportionments (approximately $1.1 million) for small urban and rural funding. New Hampshire receives the smallest apportionment and Tennessee the largest in this group. The table shows the incremental increase in funding over the 3-year period. The recipients for Boise City, ID, are Valley Regional Transit and COMPASS. The recipient for Cincinnati is the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments. The recipient for the three Utah communi- ties, Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo, is the Utah Transit Authority. Large urban funding averages over $9 million nationally each year. Boise receives the smallest allocation in the group because Provo is combined with Ogden and Salt Lake. Cincinnati receives the largest allocation in this group. 4.3 Program Subrecipients As program management approaches are compared, the number and qualities of subrecipients impact the administration structure. Table 8 shows the number of subrecipients and awards managed by each case study program. The figures were pulled from the latest program of projects for each case study, and represent 1 year of grant awards. As the grant awards are often open more than 1 year, each individual agency may be managing more than the number of awards listed in the table. If the award is a vehicle, the program managers are responsible for inspections, monitoring maintenance, and other records over the useful life of that vehicle, which could be 5â8 years. Awards are generally issued on a reimbursement basis, involving invoicing and other financial management tasks. Often the number of subrecipients is not multiplied in the same way as awards, because many of the same organizations apply for funding year after year. Those subrecipients that develop and maintain a high level of report- ing and accountability simplify the level of administrative effort for the direct or designated recipients.
29 Figure 5 provides a snapshot of the different defining character- istics addressed in each case study, with the challenges and desired outcomes reported by the program managers. 4.4 Case Study Findings Looking at the examples included in this report, a wide variety of approaches to managing the FTA Section 5310 Program have evolved as each state or urban area adapted the allowable uses of the funds to local needs. The flexible nature of the funding regula- tions regarding project selection and the ability to use both capital and operating funding makes this small pot of FTA funding a useful tool. At the same time, the level of need for transportation, particu- larly for services that enhance mobility for older adults and individu- als with disabilities, is so great that the program cannot meet all the demand, and applications for funding routinely surpass the amount of funding available. When the Section 5310 Program managers must make difficult decisions, tools such as prioritizing and scoring, coordination, and regionalization can make a difference. Managing many awards over multiple years can also make tools for record- keeping and technical assistance very valuable. The Section 5310 Program is small in comparison to public transit funding programs, Section 5307 and Section 5311. However, Sec- tion 5310 requires the same commitment of administrative time as the larger programs, demanding what can appear to be an outsized amount of time for the funding awarded. Program managers have not chosen to focus on reducing the number of subrecipients as a primary strategy for administering the program. The focus instead has been on streamlining and improving the administrative process through regional mobility managers or local coordinating councils. Even in instances where a focus on regionalization (New Hampshire DOT) and on purchase of services (Valley Regional Transit (VRT)/ COMPASS) has significantly reduced the number of grant awards administered, the program managers make a point of recruiting new TABLE 7 Section 5310 Apportionment for Case Study Participants, FY 2019â2021 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 SMALL URBAN RURAL SMALL URBAN RURAL SMALL URBAN RURAL Arizona 1,361,827 970,599 1,294,521 929,280 1,241,277 886,716 Minnesota 708,853 1,326,444 695,105 1,308,230 672,285 1,264,757 New Hampshire 569,150 443,915 555,701 433,364 540,472 412,246 Tennessee 1,427,417 2,110,200 1,389,093 2,081,671 1,347,903 2,010,862 Virginia 1,310,227 1,557,380 1,266,365 1,524,299 1,206,420 1,473,438 LARGE URBAN LARGE URBAN LARGE URBAN Boise City, ID 322,150 312,662 299,159 Cincinnati, OHâKYâIN 1,498,914 1,476,842 1,426,812 Salt Lake CityâWest Valley City, UT 751,641 733,552 701,942 OgdenâLayton, UT 425,445 418,029 405,417 ProvoâOrem, UT 288,742 277,877 265,622 Source: FTA website, www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/summary-grants-data-and-transit-trends. TABLE 8 Subrecipients, Awards, and Award Types by Agency STATE AND URBAN AREA DIRECT OR DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS SUBRECIPIENTS AWARDS AWARD TYPES ALLOWED Arizona 50 211 Vehicles, Capital Equipment, Preventive Maintenance, Operating, Mobility Management Minnesota 23 57 Vehicles, Mobility Management New Hampshire 9 22 Purchase Services, Mobility Management, Vehicles, Capital Equipment Tennessee 32 46 Vehicles, Mobility Management Virginia 38 60 Vehicles, Mobility Management, Operating, Capital Equipment Boise City, ID 1 1 Purchase Services Cincinnati, OHâKYâIN 14 not reported Vehicles, Mobility Management, Capital Equipment, Operating Salt Lake CityâWest Valley City, UT 10 18 Vehicles, Mobility Management, Operating, Capital Equipment, Preventive Maintenance OgdenâLayton, UT 9 22 See above ProvoâOrem, UT 5 10 See above
30 Enhanced Mobility for the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) Program Management Approaches The nature of the program is flexible and allows each program manager to adjust to local needs and capacity. Each case study presents a different program focus, with challenges and benefits for the administrators. The case studies were selected from survey participants that created policies to address over-subscription, or more need than funding available. This was a common issue across the country. Defining Characteristic Regional mobility managers housed within MPO/COG offices in nine regions across the state report up to the DOT, manage regional coordinated plans, and screen project applications Challenges Rural, geographic, and cultural barriers to participation More need than funding available Outcomes Mobility managers serve as regional champions or resources for expanding subrecipient participation Mobility managers also prioritize and streamline regional needs for the state administrators Defining Characteristic Applicants demonstrating coordination to receive grants, with regional mobility management tasks and goals assigned by MnDOT Challenges Getting buy in from all counties Finding a champion in each region Outcomes Simplified coordination planning and centralized administration Clear requirements for applicants to follow Improved regional coordination across most of the state Defining Characteristic A regional lead agency creating coordination through purchase of service grants Challenges Local agency decisions to preserve individually contracted service prevent larger coordination efficiencies Outcomes NHDOT program administration is simplified by having a limited number of regions with lead agencies in each area to manage grants and subrecipients Defining Characteristic Finding middle ground, in a tri-state region, between federal requirements and local staffing and subrecipient capacity Challenges Administrative burdens included shifting from managing grants to managing vehicles Some subrecipients do not have the capacity or expertise to manage federal paperwork and need assistance from OKI to fulfill requirements Outcomes Common approach across three states Using online reporting to reduce administrative burden Ongoing coordination discussions that benefit the provision of transportation by various agencies FIGUREÂ 5 Case study snapshot.
31 Defining Characteristic A new Statewide Office of Mobility and Accessible Transportation will work to tie the resources of nine regional Human Resource Agencies and public transit Challenges Boundaries between rural and urban areas fracture service Outcomes New state office enables statewide conversations about transportation issues across multiple state programs Defining Characteristic Iterative coordination efforts give decision tools and authority to local stakeholders Challenges Insurance and liability barriers Greater demand than the program can meet Outcomes Coordination process opens communication and builds relationships Local decision-making has been formalized and improved over time Defining Characteristic Funding is used for acquisition of service providers, managing all the provider organizations as one program Three tiers of coordination are organized by the transit authorityâthe top tier utilizing combined scheduling software and shared vehicles, the second tier contracting for shared trips, and the third tier participating in networking Challenges Building trust Getting approval for flexible use of funding as a purchasing pool Some areas are still not covered (evenings/ weekends, geographic spots) Outcomes Analysis of program shows an increase almost doubling passengers per hour using common scheduling Central administration with flexible vehicle pool, action-oriented/outcome- oriented service Defining Characteristic Requiring a higher level of project performance and program goals Combining scoring and priority setting for project selection; exploring funding relationships at a high level Challenges Working through changes in application, reporting, and policy Communicating with new agencies fearful of the administrative burdens Additional reporting creates additional administration Outcomes Better alignment with the Coordination Plan Improved budgeting and reduced spending on individual grants Regional and state level priorities are established Frequent reporting improves monitoring of projects and outcomes FIGUREÂ 5 (Continued).
32 services to fill gaps and meet the need for specialized transportation. New services include public-private partnerships, mobility managers, and interagency agreements for transportation programs. Still, the need for transportation services for seniors and individuals with dis- abilities outweighs the funding available in many areas, particularly in rural areas. Additional resources from several of the case studies are in Appen- dix B (nap.nationalacademies.org). For more information on these programs, the web links and contact information for the program managers are included. 4.5 State Program Management Case Studies The following case studies examine how the individual programs are maintained, supported, and the various subrecipients and awards are managed in light of local issues and constraints. Each case study demonstrates a different approach, showcasing the flexibility of Sec- tion 5310 funding to address local needs. Arizona Department of Transportation Region: Southwest Defining characteristics: Regional program management with state oversight. State and regional support of mobility managers is pro- vided by and housed in MPO/COG offices in nine regions across the state. These mobility managers report to the DOT, manage regional coordinated plans, and screen project applications. Program description: ADOTâs Multimodal Planning Division houses all FTA grant programs for its subrecipients, including the Sec- tion 5310 program for all rural and urban areas except Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)/Phoenix. When ADOT expanded project eligibility to include preventive main- tenance and mobility management, the number of vehicle requests declined. Observations of applications in recent years include the following: ⢠The number of vehicle applications decreased by 24% (13 appli- cations) between 2013 and 2020. ⢠The pool of applicants increased by 6% (3 applicants) by 2020. ⢠12% of the applications in 2020 were for mobility management. Coordination and Mobility Management Mobility Management ADOT supports the salaries of mobility managers in nine regions. The exception is the Phoenix area (MAG), where the funding comes through the large urban areaâs Section 5310 allocation. While the mobility managers get their scope of work from ADOT, they are employed individually by the stateâs COGs and MPOs, with oversight by ADOT. Mobility manager job duties vary by region and may go beyond mobility management. ADOT reimburses a portion or per- centage of the mobility managersâ salaries for time spent on mobility management work. The COGs and MPOs meet with mobility managers, and must certify to ADOT that the projects selected for regional funding are derived from the locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Mobility managers are responsible for maintaining and updating the plans. They score local applications and prepare a statement of need that is submitted to ADOT. Each regional coordinated plan sets priorities for the region. With regional panels, ADOT staff gathers more local insight into the projects pre- sented and the potential impact to the region. Fewer poor-performing agencies are funded as a result. ADOT found that engaged mobility managers, especially those who champion local projects, have successfully encouraged transit service providers to participate in the coordinated plan develop- ment, and have helped implement innovative projects, such as pilot projects conducted in partnership with Arizona State University. Coordinated Transportation Mobility managers and coordinating agencies in many ADOT regions use MOUs to define how vehicles can be shared. Partnering agen- cies are required to carry the same insurance as the owner. ADOT encourages shared vehicles, provided targeted demographic groups are adequately served by the partnering agencies. For example, one program offers a before-and-after-school/disability workshop, and allows another agency to use the vehicle midday. This sharing and coordination reduce the number of per-grantee requests. Medicaid transportation is organized through the Department of Economic Security, and it is not the responsibility of mobility managers to coordinate public or human services agency trips with Medicaid- funded nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT). However, ADOT staff encourage mobility managers to reach out to NEMT pro- viders, and at minimum to include them in the locally developed coordinated plan so the information about the services offered by NEMT providers will be published and available in the plan along with details about other transportation services. Mobility managers create the coordinated plan for their regions. Projects must be included in the coordinated plan in order to be eli- gible for a Section 5310 grant award. The requirement to participate in the plan is a barrier to some new agencies that wish to apply for a Section 5310 grant for the first time but missed the coordinated plan update planning cycle. Section 5310 Program Administration Regional Structure The ADOT Section 5310 program priority is to maintain existing systems. At the regional level, coordinated plans and regional struc- ture help with identifying needs and communicating those needs to transportation providers within each region. By understanding transportation needs, transportation agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders can develop and implement coordinated solutions. At the state level, ADOT employs one full-time and one part-time staff member to administer all aspects of the program, including approval of financial invoice requests. ADOT does not currently fund construction projects, as it does not have the administrative capacity to manage oversight of these types of projects. ADOTâs regional structure reduces the administrative burden of ADOTâs program staff. For example, regional mobility managers can address many technology issues for service providers, allowing ADOT staff to focus on statewide management. The local connec- tion between transportation agencies and regional mobility man- agers also allows more face-to-face communication and stronger relationships.
33 Funding and Applications The ADOT Section 5310 grant process has a 2-year application and funding cycle. Mobility manager grants are reviewed and approved on alternative years from the capital funding application submis- sions. Alternating the application cycles allows subrecipient agencies to plan ahead for each application cycle. ADOT implemented a statewide scoring process in 2019 that acknowledges varying amounts of resources among applicants and strives to maintain an equitable process. It is considering a return to the regional scoring process, however, because that may better reflect local needs and priorities. ADOTâs Section 5310 program funds the following: ⢠Operating and capital projects are funded up to 35% for operat- ing and 10% for administration. ⢠Preventative maintenance projects were prioritized in the FY 2021 request for supplemental funding. ⢠Higher federal match ratios go to subrecipients with accessible vehicles. ⢠âOpen doorâ services are eligible for funding. Performance Oversight ADOT state-level program managers and regional mobility manag- ers perform annual inspections, site visits, and Title VI evaluations for subrecipients. ADOT performs an annual analysis of funding distribu- tion among small urban, rural, and large urban areas, but does not have the staff capacity to conduct additional data/performance anal- ysis. ADOT notes that virtual meetings are used to alleviate some transportation burden, but technology and accessibility barriers are still present. ADOT requires an annual inspection of all vehicles awarded through its Section 5310 program. Vehicles can either be inspected by ADOTâs Equipment Services group or a mechanic can complete the inspection form (linked on ADOTâs Section 5310 web page) and return it to ADOT. The mileage and vehicle reports have a direct impact on future awards. For example, if vehicles are underutilized during the year (i.e., low mileage) ADOT may deny a future request for funding from that agency unless the low mileage is justified and has been remedied. Key Takeaways from ADOT Notable Practices ⢠ADOT awards higher federal match ratios to subrecipients with accessible vehicles. ⢠ADOT provides targeted support to regions with disadvantaged communities. ⢠Section 5310 awards are issued in 2-year cycles. ⢠Mobility manager grant applications are accepted on alternate years from the capital funding application in order to help sub- recipient agencies plan in the year leading up to the next applica- tion submission. Challenges ⢠The extremely rural and tribal areas of the state have large gaps in service. Gaps exist for different reasons, such as funding limitations that require jurisdictional service area boundaries, and the high cost of providing transportation in rural areas where ridership per hour can be extremely low. ⢠Regions vary in their technology resources and capability. ADOT is working to develop regional applications for dispatch and one- click systems. ⢠Limited administrative resources do not allow for sophisticated data/performance analysis beyond the basic reporting require- ments, which would be useful to determine needs and trends among transit agencies and regional service. ADOT staff reported they need better resources for performance oversight. Currently, ADOT simply receives reports, but it would like to create the capacity for more data analysis. ⢠The regional requirement to be included in the coordinated plans is a barrier to entry for new agencies. ⢠Statewide operators are required to participate in coordinated plans for all regions where they operate, which can be a complex and time-consuming administrative activity. Lessons Learned ⢠ADOT found that mobility managers and other local partners, such as nonprofit organizations and hospitals, provide valuable connections and resources for riders. ADOT plans to conduct additional outreach to mobility managers and partners to main- tain these relationships. ⢠When asked what it would change about the administration of Section 5310, staff suggested the FTA consider removing the DBE reporting requirements, as many small and rural agencies find the administrative and certification requirements a significant barrier. ⢠ADOT undertook the initiative to include NEMT in regional coor- dinated plans even though NEMT service is not coordinated with other nonmedical trips. Involvement from NEMT transportation providers in the coordinated plan inventory of services helped give the mobility managers a more comprehensive view of mobility needs compared to available services. Contact: https://azdot.gov/planning/transit-programs-and-grants/5310- enhanced-mobility-seniors-and-individuals-disabilities-1 Minnesota Department of Transportation Region: Midwest Defining characteristics: Applicants must demonstrate coordina- tion, regional mobility management tasks, and goals to receive future funding. Program description: In 2017, the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation (MnDOT) reorganized the local agencies in 12 regional transportation coordinating councils (RTCCs). The seven-county Twin Cities metro area coordination, called Transit Coordination Assistance Project (TCAP), hosts countywide coordination councils using large UZA funding, parallel to but separate from the 12 RTCCs elsewhere in the state. The RTCCs work with public transit, local volunteer driver programs, human services agencies, and meal delivery programs to coordinate trips and communicate transit service information.
34 Coordination and Mobility Management Mobility Management MnDOT created the planning application and related process for regions to receive Section 5310 mobility management funding. Funding for mobility management is competitively distributed. The regions develop an organizational plan (phase 1), an operational implementation plan (phase 2), and implementation of comprehen- sive work plan (phase 3), which are reviewed for consideration of grant funding. MnDOT allocates 100% funding using a 20% state match to the 80% federal Section 5310 program, supporting the organizational planning process. In the implementation rounds, the regions must apply for 90% funding (80% federal, 10% state) and match the other 10% with local and county funds. The local match is required after the first 2 years of new service. In the future, MnDOT plans to require applicants for transit vehicles to demonstrate involvement in coordi- nation with the TCAP or RTCC process. MnDOT uses a participation score to ensure applicants understand and participate in the coordi- nation efforts in their own regions. Coordinated Transportation Many human services agencies demonstrate coordination by work- ing with the public transit provider to bring a large portion of con- sumers to the agency in the morning and take them home in the afternoon. The human services agencies are essentially purchasing transportation from the public transit provider either through a con- tract or on a per-ride basis. MnDOT also organized the Minnesota Council on Transportation Access (see Figure 6), a 13-member state-level organization including staff from MnDOT and the Minnesota Department of Human Services, in collaboration with the Office of the Governor, Minnesota Council on Disability, Minnesota Public Transit Association, Minnesota Depart- ment of Health, Minnesota Department of Commerce, Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Management and Budget, Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Board on Aging, and Minnesota Department of Employ- ment and Economic Development. This council oversees and supports the regional coordination efforts. Section 5310 Program Administration MnDOT divides its Section 5310 funding between traditional vehicle applications and regional mobility management. Applicants for tradi- tional capital funding are encouraged to demonstrate ongoing coordi- nation with at least one other agency. Continued funding is predicated on completion of the tasks from the prior round. For example, regions may go through the planning process (phase 1) but will not get fund- ing toward implementation (phase 2) until they identify a champion for the effort and start a regional transportation coordinating council (RTCC). TCAP, the most established regional program, receives the 80% federal Section 5310 funding and is required to provide the full 20% match from local sources; no state match is provided to TCAP. This 80% federal/20% local match is the ultimate goal for the RTCCs once they are established. MnDOT is gradually moving away from using state dollars to provide matching funds. Currently, however, RTCCs can use state dollars to pay for a portion of mobility man- agement administrative costs (staff), and some state funding can be used for planning. When a region reaches phase 3, it is eligible for a 90% federal match to the 10% local match. Phase 4 will be funded at 80% federal, 10% state, and 10% local match. Seven RTCCs were progressing to phase 4 at the time of this study. Phase 4 grants are made on 2-year funding cycles. Key Takeaways from MnDOT Notable Practices ⢠MnDOT offers a series of monthly webinars through the Greater Minnesota Shared Mobility Program, helping to expand under- standing and common knowledge around shared-use technology and services. The RTCCs also offered a volunteer driver forum series, conducting regional presentations via webinar for state- wide participation. ⢠MnDOT is using a new logic model so funders (state- or local government-level) can see the measurable benefits of participat- ing in coordinated transportation efforts. Challenges MnDOT intends to change how site visits are managed, perhaps moving to biannual vehicle inspections. Up to this point the Sec- tion 5310 program has not been oversubscribed for vehicle applica- tions, but with the RTCCs and TCAP involved the program may grow. Lessons Learned ⢠It takes a strong champion for a coordinated transportation pro- gram to succeed. ⢠The more local stakeholder organizations that are involved at the beginning of the coordinating council development process, the better. ⢠It is best to secure a funding commitment from local stakeholders to support the coordinated transportation efforts at the onset of their involvement. Securing early support can be an indication that stakeholders have confidence in the program and will con- tinue to support its operations. ⢠With the implementation of a regional approach, MnDOT elim- inated district-level project managers and redistributed respon- sibilities among regional managers and 1.5 full-time-equivalent employees at MnDOT who are responsible for statewide program administration and review. ⢠MnDOT may consider using operating dollars to support its cap- ital recipients with additional insurance and maintenance fund- ing. MnDOT is in the process of revamping its application scoring process. Contact: www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/index.html New Hampshire Department of Transportation Region: Northeast Defining characteristics: The Section 5310 Program administered in New Hampshire combines a regional approach and coordination through purchase-of-service grants.
35 Program description: New Hampshire Department of Transporta- tion (NHDOT) funds mobility management, acquisition of services through eight regions with regional coordinating councils (RCCs) as lead agencies, and vehicles; all are capital expenses. These eight regions are at the heart of NHDOTâs Section 5310 program admin- istration. The state also supports a statewide coordination council (SCC) made up of regional providers and representatives from various state and federal funding programs that allow transportation as an eligible expense. SCC participants include the Departments of Transportation, Education, and Health and Human Services; the Governorâs Commission on Disability; and regional transportation provider representatives. Mobility Management and Coordination Mobility Management NHDOT is working with each region to promote shared sched- uling and dispatching technology. To date, one region operates a one-call/one-click center. Other regions are still working through the challenges associated with shared or standard technology. NHDOT also plans to create a statewide mobility manager posi- tion, using toll revenue credits to match the Section 5310 funding. The mobility manager would be in a position to encourage coordi- nated planning as a top-down state-managed process, addressing systemic local barriers to coordinating transportation and educating departments that receive federal funding about fund braiding. Coordinated Transportation Coordination efforts are unique to each RCC, but all applications for Section 5310 grants must include a letter from the RCC verifying the applicant is willing to coordinate or participate in a purchase-of- service agreement. The actual level of coordinated transportation varies across the regions. One region, for example, has a strong mobility manager and a one-call/one-click center in place that improves efficiency of service Source: MNDOT. FIGURE 6 Minnesota regional coordinating councils and status of coordination.
36 and access to/information about services. Other regions may have fewer transportation resources and choose not to implement a centralized call center but develop different approaches to coor- dination such as implementing transfers at county lines for multi- jurisdictional trips. Having a local champion (an individual or agency) for coordinated transportation is impactful. Transportation providers in all regions are required to vote on a lead agency for the RCC, and NHDOT requires coordinated public transit services (including Section 5310) be administered through that lead agency. Local taxis, for example, must work through the RCC to participate in purchase-of-service contracts with organizations that operate with FTA funding. NHDOTâs goal is for the regional lead agency to be the transpor- tation provider and/or purchase service from a third party. The lead agencies determine the level of participation from other transporta- tion provider agencies in the region. Section 5310 Program Administration NHDOT developed its RCCs in 2008. Regions were designed, in part, based on the logical flow of traffic to regional hospitals. With the regional structure, the providers and funding agencies have realized economies of scale and more efficient use of funding to meet trans- portation needs. The structure also allowed NHDOT to minimize its administrative duties by reducing the number of Section 5310 recipients. NHDOT now oversees and manages eight regions and the RCCs administer the grants to the individual Section 5310 pro- grams in their geographic areas. NHDOT would recommend that other states considering estab- lishing regions should align regional boundaries with county, MPO, or other existing jurisdictional lines to encourage local government buy-in and help clarify how matching funds provided by local gov- ernments are used in each jurisdiction. When a regionâs borders do not line up with county or city borders, separate service agreements have to be created with additional counties or cities, or the areas are left unserved. NHDOT has traditionally awarded annual contracts for Sec- tion 5310 funding, but plans to implement a 2-year solicitation, which should give more time for administrators to address local issues and disparities between grant awards. Key Takeaways from NHDOT Notable Practices ⢠NHDOT expects local agencies in each region to find service and administrative efficiencies, to coordinate, and potentially to con- solidate. An example of the stateâs approach to incentivizing coor- dination at the regional level through grant awards is the recent award of laptops to the smaller of two volunteer transportation programs operating in the same area. The laptops were awarded with notification that for future awards, the program must provide evidence that it is coordinating service with the other volunteer program or other providers in the region. ⢠NHDOT provides some state funding to marketing efforts that support 2-1-1 as a call center solution that includes transportation programs. Two NHDOT goals are to increase the transportation services available locally with small programs like churches and volunteer programs, and to work with the call center services to provide regionally appropriate responses. ⢠NHDOT also plans to create a statewide mobility manager posi- tion using toll revenue credits to match the Section 5310 funding. Challenges ⢠In some regions the mobility managers work at the lead agency but provide minimal coordination of trips for clients from other agencies. This results in the lead agencyâs clients receiving more efficient service but clients of other agencies experiencing gaps in access to resources or inefficient travel times. ⢠The transportation providers look to the SCC to combine or braid funding resources and restructure policies that allow for delivery of Medicaid-eligible transportation with public transit services. Discussions between the Departments of Health and Human Ser- vices and Transportation are ongoing. ⢠Each transportation provider has its own scheduling and dispatch software and has invested in technology and staff training. It would require a significant change in administrative practices to coordinate with another organization that uses different or non- compatible technology. Lessons Learned ⢠The RCCs currently do not report to the SCC, and NHDOT sug- gests reporting to the statewide council would promote more consistency between regions. ⢠NHDOT would like for coordinated public transit-human ser- vices transportation plans to provide a platform for increased coordination. ⢠For other states working to implement regions, NHDOT recom- mends creating a mobility manager role when the regions are set up, having a compatible solution in place for dispatching technology, and using existing directories like 2-1-1. ⢠For other states considering regional coordination, NHDOT rec- ommends setting up the boundaries along county or other juris- dictional lines to promote local negotiations about service and funding. Contact: www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit Tennessee Department of Transportation Region: South Defining characteristics: Legislation was passed to create and estab- lish the Office of Mobility and Accessible Transportation, which is responsible for Section 5310 program administration and is advised by a working group of representatives from multiple interested state departments. Program description: Tennesseeâs Office of Mobility and Accessible Transportation was created and authorized with legislation in 2020. It is staffed by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) for the purpose of providing resources and expertise for expanding and improving access to transportation across the state. It works closely with a transportation working group composed of representatives from interested state departments, agencies, and other parties that serve older adults and individuals with disabilities. Section 5310 funding for capital projects, including mobility management, is a sig- nificant portion of the officeâs budget and focus.
37 Mobility Management and Coordination Mobility Management The Office of Mobility and Accessible Transportation seeks to develop mobility management-related goals that will support advancement of coordinated transportation activities at the local level, such as inter- agency agreements; technology advancements that are accessible for the user and allow for multiagency trips or information; policies that support multijurisdictional trips for the rider; and multimodal services. The office was charged with creating a mission statement, 5-year plan, and annual reports on accessible transportation. Staffed by TDOT, the office was designed to be guided by a group of stake- holders that included other state agencies and people who use accessible transportation. Coordinated Transportation TDOT organizes its public transportation resources around urban transit providers and nine regional human resources agencies (https://tnhra.org) that operate independently but are responsible for coordinating key rural transportation initiatives, including public transportation. The regional model is beneficial for coordinating the administration and delivery of rural public transportation across multiple counties. Section 5310 Administration TDOT has historically used Section 5310 funds to provide replace- ment and expansion vehicles. With the creation of the Office of Mobility and Accessible Transportation, it expanded the program scope to include a competitive process for regional mobility man- agement programs. Three agencies received mobility management awards in 2019. Currently, rural public transit agencies are eligible to receive mobility management awards. In small urban areas, TDOT receives fewer applications than fund- ing available. After the need is assessed and appropriate awards are made based on the scoring, the remaining small urban funding is frequently transferred to use in rural areas where demand for funding is more significant. The rural areas generally have three to four times more applications than funds available. TDOT purchases replacement and expansion vehicles on behalf of the Section 5310 nonprofit agency grantees that provide âclosed doorâ client-only services. The public transit agency recipients are responsible for vehicle procurement, reducing TDOTâs Section 5310 administrative expenditures and allowing TDOT staff to provide more assistance to smaller nonprofit agencies. TDOT reimburses public transit agencies for vehicle procurement. The process also allows the transit agencies to purchase a wider variety of vehicles to suit their identified needs. Furthermore, the availability of Section 5339 funds for public transit agencies to receive vehicles has reduced the transit reliance on Section 5310 funds. Administrative assistance to nonprofit agencies is a large part of the program according to TDOT staff. While the public transit agencies are well established and have the capacity to manage the vehicle maintenance and reporting requirements, TDOT staff find that some of the nonprofit agencies have less capacity to fulfill the requirements of the Section 5310 grant and, therefore, require more assistance from TDOT. TDOT staff provide technical assistance to subrecipients to improve reporting accuracy and advise new applicants about vehicle selections that are most appropriate for their capabilities and needs. An online grants management system is being developed that would allow all subrecipients to access contracts, submit quarterly reports, and see what documents they have on file, simplifying application and reporting. Applications/Project Selection TDOT staff also offer assistance throughout the application cycle. Sometimes, for example, it may advise small nonprofits to request a vehicle with a ramp rather than a lift, as the ramp is easier to use and maintain. Other Section 5310-funded agencies may request electric vehicles but do not have the infrastructure in place to charge and maintain them. Still other agencies may request larger vehicles only to find they struggle to afford qualified commercially licensed drivers. TDOT staff advise agencies to the extent possible and work with department engineers to update vehicle specifications before the next round of procurements. TDOT staff prepare two grant applications for small urban and rural areas. TDOT was issuing a call for Section 5310 projects bien- nially but shifted to an annual solicitation cycle in 2018. Staff feel the annual process has been more successful in targeting project spend- ing toward specific, identifiable goals. Applicants prefer the annual award schedule because if they are unsuccessful, they can reapply the next year rather than waiting 2 years. The application process includes an optional precertification, limited to 30 days, to help the nonprofit agency meet documenta- tion requirements. Applications are prescored, then reviewed and discussed by an evaluation committee. The evaluation committee includes the compliance and civil rights staff from TDOT, and each person on the committee prepares an independent score; these are later combined into an overall score. The TDOT staff score Section 5310 applications in three catego- ries: capability and capacity; vehicle/project evaluation; and project need. Each category receives up to 10 points. Detailed descriptions of these categories are in Appendix A and in the TDOT Section 5310 application (www.tn.gov/tdot/multimodal-transportation-resources/ omat/5310-program.html). ⢠The capability and capacity category measures the agencyâs ability to manage a federal grant award and includes consideration of prior performance. ⢠Project evaluation includes the fleet status and justifies the need for replacement or expansion vehicles. Mobility management projects must demonstrate the need for new or continued service and evaluate if the funding will be fully used. ⢠Project need measures the level of anticipated improvement for target populations, whether the application performance targets are realistic, and how the performance metrics will be met. Key Takeaways from TDOT Notable Practices ⢠The Office of Mobility and Accessible Transportation is analyzing the gaps in access to transportation services for older adults and individuals with disabilities statewide and developing a strategic plan. Strategic goals and objectives are based on cooperative planning at the state level from departments that oversee and fund public or client-based transportation. The Section 5310 pro- gram is at the heart of the officeâs staff and funding.
38 ⢠The availability of Section 5339 funds for public transit agencies to receive vehicles has reduced transit reliance on Section 5310 funds. ⢠TDOT provides administrative guidance to struggling programs. It is also developing an online grants management program that will streamline the reporting process. Challenges ⢠Nonprofit agencies applying for Section 5310 grants do not have access to other federal funds to purchase vehicles, which creates a dependence on the very limited Section 5310 grants. ⢠The need for accessible transportation is greater than the pro- gram can meet in rural areas. ⢠While the funding allocated through Section 5310 is small com- pared to other transit funding, it requires significant administrative resources for reporting and monitoring from the subrecipients that use it. Lessons Learned ⢠TDOT shifted from a biennial to an annual call for Section 5310 projects in 2018. The annual process has been more successful in targeting project spending. With the annual cycle, a denied appli- cation is less of a setback to the applicant because it can apply again in a year. ⢠TDOT staff appreciate the ability to allocate unused funding from the small urban apportionment to rural areas and would consider combining the small urban and rural funds if the FTA permitted. The separate apportionments create extra reporting or unneces- sary service area boundaries for agencies that provide trips that cross rural and urban area boundaries. Contact: www.tn.gov/tdot/multimodal-transportation-resources/office-of- public-transportation.html Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Region: Southeast Defining characteristics: Virginiaâs program requires project perfor- mance and program goals; combines scoring and priority setting for project selection; and explores funding relationships at a high level. Program description: The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) overhauled its Section 5310 program and appli- cation process before the FY 2021 grant cycle. DRPT wanted grantees to budget better, establish goals and report on how to meet them, and better use Section 5310 vehicles. For agencies that applied for operating or mobility management funding, a template was created for a 12-month line-item budget that served as the basis for reimbursements throughout the grant year. These steps led to a decrease in requested funding as the agencies began to evaluate expenditures differently. Mobility Management and Coordination Mobility Management The mobility management projects funded in Virginia include regional mobility manager salaries. Some of the mobility managers pro- vide travel training services; others actively serve as a matchmaker/ service broker, filling the function of a one-call/one-click service. Other Section 5310 operating or contracting funds go to Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) that are also rural public transportation providers. Coordinated Transportation Each operating and mobility management applicant must develop program goals and objectives, with measurable activities tied to the current coordinated plan, and provide this information via template in the application process. Reporting is required four times per year so DRPT staff can monitor progress and use the information to inform future application reviews. Section 5310 Program Administration DRPT annual funding requests total millions of dollars more than what is available. The DRPT must work to balance funding decisions with equity and regional considerations. The latest iteration of their coordinated plan (called the Coordinated Human Services Mobility Plan) laid the groundwork for even greater changes, calling together a consortium of state agencies that also provide or benefit from transportation funding to work on resource sharing across agencies. The consortium will help DRPT improve its understanding of the services offered by some subrecipients so it can better determine whether those services should be funded through Section 5310 or some other source. Further, DRPT will work with each of the stateâs six regions to develop a required coordinating committee that will ensure transportation services are truly coordinated across the region to avoid duplication in funding. Applications/Project Selection Applicants must notify the MPO of their intent to apply for funding by a certain date in the application cycle and attend a regional coor- dination meeting. DRPT uses a weighted scoring system to review applications; projects with high scores are considered for funding over those with lower scores. DRPT awards points to entities partic- ipating in a coordinated effort and additional points for operating a coordinated service. An excerpt of the application is in Appendix B. For FY 2022, DRPT combined the vehicle and operating applications into one document, which simplified administration and made the review process quicker. Key Takeaways from DRPT Notable Practices ⢠DRPT enacted a score-focused process for FY 2021 because it was an actionable, attainable item. This occurred at the end of the coordinated plan update when the application period opened. ⢠For FY 2022, DRPT combined the vehicle and operating appli- cations into one document, which simplified administration and made the review process quicker. Challenges ⢠The DRPT funding requests each year total millions of dollars more than what is available. DRPT must work to balance funding decisions with equity and regional considerations. Lessons Learned ⢠DRPT hopes to use a committee of state agencies and the regional committees to drive funding priorities for future cycles.
39 Contact: www.drpt.virginia.gov/transit/human-services-grant-program 4.6 Urbanized Area Program Management Case Studies Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments in the Cincinnati Area Region: Midwest Defining characteristics: Successful at creating a middle ground in a tristate region between federal requirements, local staffing, and subrecipient capacity. Program description: The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI), the designated MPO for the Cincinnati region, is a council of local governments, business organizations, and commu- nity groups, including eight counties and three states (see Figure 7). The organization is the designated recipient for large UZA Sec- tion 5310 funding. Mobility Management and Coordination Coordinated Transportation New agencies continue to join OKIâs coordinated plan so their pro jects can be considered for funding. While coordination work con tinues to expand, the list of applicants does not expand as quicklyâonly one new agency is applying in the current round of funding. OKI reports that transit and human services agencies in northern Kentucky work together productively. The Northern Kentucky Area Development District (NKADD) is developing a call center, which was awarded Section 5310 funding, and is ramping up to connect resi- dents with local transportation providers. The program is valuable for the areas in OKIâs jurisdiction and surrounding rural areas because many of the rural residents come into the urban area to access hos- pitals and medical providers. Section 5310 Program Administration OKI stated that it is better able to understand local issues and main- tain working relationships with local jurisdictions because it is the recipient of federal Section 5310 funds for the entire UZA. OKI also indicated that the involvement of both the state and regions opens discussions on the best ways to share resources and serve the rural portions of the area. The allocation process has resulted in addi- tional collaboration among human services agencies. It also allows the MPO to leverage its other funding resources toward Section 5310 objectives. The OKI Section 5310 program manager acknowledged that working in three different states can be a challenge, particularly as regards state boundaries. For example, one of the three states has a mandate against Section 5310 and 5311 recipient vehicles crossing into other states. This rule can affect the Section 5310 pro- gram throughout the region. The funding, as the manager points out, comes to the whole region and not to the individual states, but other rules and regulations impact how it can be used. Program Management OKI staff implemented an online form for annual vehicle monitor- ing, which has streamlined the agencyâs administrative process. OKI also shifted its useful life benchmarks from the ODOT standard to a shorter time period consistent with the FTA minimum period. This change reduced the associated grant reporting from a quarterly to an annual period, saving administrative time. The program manager Source: www.oki.org. FIGURE 7 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments tristate region.
40 suggested that TrAMS could be streamlined even more for Sec- tion 5310 grantees, perhaps by allowing the program of projects to serve as the grant description. Program Funding A 2-year funding cycle is used, allowing OKI to provide approximately $2 million in 2019 and 2020 funds to an average of 14 subrecipients. In the past several application cycles there have been slightly more requests than available funding. Staff generally have been able to award some funding to most or all applicants. OKI awards 60% or more of its funding for vehicles, and uses 10% for administration, with the remaining funding going to mobility management and operations applicants. OKI initially decided to use the mobility management funding as a New Freedom-funded use, and then transitioned to the full spectrum of uses allowed by Section 5310. Applications/Project Selection OKI uses a competitive selection process for applications. Project selection criteria are as follows: CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE Filling gaps in service to target populations 0â15 Undertaking coordinated plan strategies 0â15 How well your project serves the target populations 0â15 Coordinated efforts to eliminate/reduce duplication in services 0â25 Project sustainability 0â15 Quantification of anticipated benefits 0â15 Partnerships and other forms of coordination earn the most points. OKI intentionally ties all scoring to the coordinated plan, looking at how proposals fill gaps, address strategies in the plan, and provide the greatest benefit based on identified needs. Important metrics include the number of individuals and communities served by a project. OKI does not have a scoring category that takes the state or location in the region into account. An oversight team, staffed by selected volunteers from local transit, senior, and disability service programs, helps the staff with scoring and makes recommendations for funding. The oversight team is also critical to the coordinated plan update process, and helps ensure a sustained, comprehensive regional vision. Key Takeaways from OKI Notable Practices ⢠The OKI application rating criteria focuses on coordinated efforts by awarding more points to multiple agencies applying together than to one independent agency application. Partnerships and other forms of coordination earn the most points. Other impor- tant metrics include the number of individuals and communities served by a project. ⢠OKI implemented an online form for annual vehicle monitoring requirements, which has resulted in time savings for OKI staff and subrecipients. Challenges ⢠State mandates about vehicles are specific to each state and create challenges for the efficient use of Section 5310 funding allocated to the region. The funding, as the manager points out, comes to the whole region and not to the individual states, but other state laws and regulations impact how vehicles can be used. ⢠OKI staff recognize the program does not come close to funding all the needs in the region, and does not allow for larger-scale projects without denying many smaller applications. ⢠As OKI prepares for a future with an increased percentage of the population over 65 years of age, they anticipate a growing demand for transportation services for people who are unable to use a private vehicle. Lessons Learned ⢠The need to enhance transportation goes beyond buying buses, according to OKI staff. The navigation aids and mobility assis- tance would not exist without the Section 5310 funding. ⢠The program manager suggested post-award reporting in TrAMS could be streamlined even more for Section 5310 grantees, per- haps by allowing the program of projects to serve as the grant description. Contact: www.oki.org/studies-plans/oki-coordinated-plan-2020-update https://funding.oki.org/5310-information VRT and COMPASS in the Boise, Idaho Region Region: West Defining characteristics: The public transit authority, VRT, combines Section 5310 funding for acquisition of service, managing all the provider organizations as one program. Three tiers of coordination are organized by the transit authorityâthe top tier using combined scheduling software and shared vehicles, the second tier contracting for shared trips, and the third tier participating in networking activ- ities. It is VRTâs practice to have COMPASS, the local MPO, run the application process. All COMPASS Section 5310 funds go directly to VRT as a single award toward acquisition of service. Program description: VRT creates a pool of funding and shared vehicles. It also assigns grants based on priorities and contracts with operators through an official procurement process, rather than using a competitive selection process for grant applications. By creating this structure and adapting it to local needs over time, the Section 5310 providers and other human services agency programs have been able to coordinate with public transit. Mobility Management and Coordination Mobility Management VRT uses a no-wrong-door approach for the rider. The on-demand scheduling may change that, but hopefully riders will still just call one number and whoever answers can schedule the trip. Currently riders can call VRTâs call center and put a trip in where it fits, or the rider can call the senior center or other provider directly as they all have access to the same scheduling tools. Coordinated Transportation The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) allows MPOs to program the small UZA Section 5310 funds. VRT, the public transit operator
41 for the Boise region, is the large UZA Section 5310 designated recip- ient and it also applies to ITD for part of the rural apportionment for the rural counties in VRTâs service area. COMPASS, the local MPO, runs the application process. Over the course of a decade, policy has shifted so that all COMPASS Section 5310 funds go directly to VRT as a single award toward acquisition of service. VRT purchases service through a set of agreements with transportation providers in the area. The evolution in program administration occurred in response to several economic forces that were at work to leverage collective resources. The senior centers were losing a percentage of Title III-B of the Older Americans Act funding due to the 2011 recession and state budget cuts, and could not afford to operate vehicles any longer. VRT became the designated recipient for large UZA Section 5310 funding and gradually centralized the coordination efforts for trans- portation of older adults and individuals with disabilities. At the time, two of the rural senior center providers were already collaborating. Because the centers were interested in nutrition programs and making sure their patrons ate a healthy meal each day, they shared the nutrition program and offered meals on alternating days for all older adults in their combined areas, applying for Section 5310 fund- ing for the transportation. Gradually other programs were pulled into the coordination process, working together and building trust. VRT worked with FTA Region 10 to use small UZA federal public transit dollars to bring rural riders into larger urban areas. The FTA region agreed that as long as one leg of the trip was in the urban area, it would be counted as an urban trip. Section 5310 Program Administration In 2018, VRT received AAA designation. The funding VRT can use from multiple federal programs (including the DOT and Older Amer- icans Act) to provide transportation is pooled whenever possible. Section 5310 funding alone is insufficient to meet the needs for service. VRT issues a call for providers and projects (see Appendix B). The applicants submit a statement of their ability to meet the criteria to be one of the regional providers. Applicants tell VRT what geography and span of time they intend to serve and how they will meet VRTâs standard safety requirements and rules. Then VRT contracts for services with each eligible provider that applies. The contractors/ providers find the right business model for their needs with some paying a per-ride rate as high as $15 and others as low as $10 per hour. Programs that use part-time volunteer drivers to supplement or expand the capacity of the transportation provided by paid drivers may have a slightly lower cost of service, with some salary expenses reduced from the transportation program. The volunteer driver hours can also serve as in-kind match for federal funding. Provider Tiers There are three tiers of providers. Tier 1 providers are what the VRT transit director calls super providers and are using the shared vehicle pool, the full complement of vehicles owned by VRT; each agency pays an annual fee for use of the vehicles. Providers initially resisted the idea of not owning vehicles but have discovered a shared vehicle pool is beneficial when they have short-term needs or maintenance issues. VRT also has scheduling software with licensing for each agency, providing training and IT support. The vehicle pool has received extra vehicles from commuter ride vans because the VRT vanpool program donates vans when they reach 120,000 miles. Donated commuter ride vans are not wheelchair accessible, however. In tier 2, providers are operating trips but not using the pooled vehicles or scheduling software. These providers are usually smaller senior centers. Tier 3 providers serve a small essential niche and almost all are operating trips to any older adult or person with a disability, wherever they want to go. Only one provider is focused on transporting people to meals at the center. Cost Allocation Another recent change in the program is that all providers have agreed to shift from a ridership unit of pay to a per-hour unit of pay. The per-hour unit simplifies the administrative burden of tracking riders by funding source. The AAA is working with VRT to make sure there is a fair allocation of the Older Americans Act dollars. VRT uses some large UZA Section 5307 public transit funds for projects that go beyond the ADA. Each year VRT tries to simplify the management and administrative process for Section 5310. A total of 87,502 rides were provided by VRT specialized transportation programs during FY 2019. Rides per hour increased from 1.56 passengers per hour in 2017 to 2.81 passengers per hour in FY 2019. Key Takeaways from COMPASS and VRT Notable Practices ⢠The program will venture into on-demand scheduling. VRT plans to build an operational expense for the license into the hourly rates each contracted provider defines. ⢠VRT includes safety standards all contracted providers must meet in order to operate as a contracted provider. Challenges ⢠Section 5310 funding is insufficient to meet the total service needs. ⢠VRT conducted an analysis to tease out what steps have worked best over the last 3 years, when most of the changes have hap- pened. Now, VRT will work to standardize more of these unique contracts and relationships. VRT is still working to fill gaps, espe- cially weekends and evenings, with providers that are willing to cover more time but run out of money. ⢠The network of providers was built over the course of a decade by following the path of least resistance. It started with the two senior centers that were already collaborating and gradually expanded to include additional programs and partners. Lessons Learned ⢠The providers have become accustomed to not getting the grant award but getting a contract instead. Providers initially resisted the idea of not owning vehicles but have discovered a shared vehicle pool is beneficial when they have short-term needs for additional vehicles. ⢠Because all funding is coordinated through VRT, the process of tracking and assigning costs to the appropriate pot of money for trips that cross the urban-rural area boundaries is simplified. ⢠It is important to have partners that are willing to follow common rules and provide invoices on time, keeping the process smooth.
42 ⢠VRT plans around performance metrics it wants to achieve and outcomes it wants to accomplish. ⢠The providers need to feel they are a part of the design, not having something done to or forced on them. ⢠The coordination discussion started with trips for older adults and people with disabilities but the conversation changed as every- body realized it is about independence, so they decided to start with the end in mind: how can they make the customerâs life better? ⢠When one or two providers have a good experience and then talk to each other, change is created. VRT does not spend time working with agencies that are resistant to the program and its requirements. Contact: www.valleyregionaltransit.org/services www.compassidaho.org Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City Area Region: West Defining characteristics: Iterative coordination efforts give decision tools and authority to local stakeholders. Description of program: The UTA revitalized local coordination councils (LCCs) when it became the designated recipient for the Section 5310 program in 2013. Iterative program and process improvements have allowed the Section 5310 program to grow and strengthen coordinated transportation over time through the LCCs. The transit agency continues to balance the goals of the program with the limits of the funding. Mobility Management and Coordination Mobility Management UTAâs mobility management efforts are led by the UTA Coordinated Mobility program, which is innovative independent of Section 5310. UTA has worked to be more efficient, to put tools out to make the subrecipients better at what they do. Coordinated Transportation The LCCs have successfully brought more people together. UTA has worked hard to involve any agencies doing any sort of transportation in the councils. UTA staff feel that has made a difference in planning and identifying gaps. Still, they feel âthereâs only so much collabora- tion you can actually do.â The agencies do a great job to provide the services they can with the restrictions and funding from all the pro- grams. Section 5310 funding helps, but it doesnât solve the problem. Coordinating Council Roles and Responsibilities The LCCs were initially set up so UTA would not be the decision- maker on all Section 5310 applications. UTA wanted the LCCs to pro- vide a more locally oriented focus on needs and goals, and create a sense of ownership. UTA and the LCCs made some changes in 2017 (2015 funds), deciding to have reviewers from outside the UZAs where the proj- ect was located. For example, Ogden LCC would score applications from Provo LCC. Applications were scored based on coordination requirements, level of collaboration (multiple agencies on a project), and program measures (trips or benefits/expands service). These cri- teria are hard concepts to compare, and as a result, all reviewers gave everyone a perfect score on every criterion. In 2018, the process was changed and the UTA staff did the ini- tial scoring, which was then reviewed by the LCCs. Each cycle saw increases in the number of applicants and recruitment to the LCCs. There was more ownership, but also an uncomfortable sense of LCCs having to make difficult decisions. The UTA grant management team did not want to remove the decision-making power from the LCCs, but needed consistent technical scoring. In the most recent application cycle, UTA program staff scored the applications and compared notes. Notes were provided to the LCCs. Each LCC decided how it would review the scores and make the final awards. Each region took a different approach. Salt Lake City LCC had an open process, reviewed the scores and allowed applicants to speak to the projects. In Ogden-Layton, the grant management team listened to all applicants and asked questions, and then had a separate meeting to make awards. In Provo-Orem, the decision came from the LCC itself, in large part because there were more applica- tions requesting larger amounts than in previous years. All LCCs and UTA want to make sure everyone feels they have the best opportunity to present their project applications. Section 5310 Program Administration UTAâs program management responsibilities include the greater Salt Lake City, Ogden-Layton, and Provo-Orem UZAs. Currently, UTA has 29 total subrecipients, and over 70 ongoing projects. Annually, UTA awards about 25 applications per cycle. Where UTA applies directly for Section 5310 funds, its application is ranked and awarded just like the other projects. UTA uses a 2-year grant cycle, which provides more time to manage the program and more time for local agencies to prepare strong applications. The pro- gram can also offer a larger pot of money to leverage better projects during each application cycle. The gap year also gives LCCs time to develop collaborative projects. UTA does a 35/55% split and takes 10% for administration. The 35% cap on operations projects allows UTA to focus on grants that provide the strongest resources. UTA staff recognizes there is not enough local and federal money for their region to meet transportation needs, not only for older adults and people with disabilities, but also for veterans, people with low incomes, and other transportation-dependent populations. Creating a cost-sharing solution to allow trips to be shared is still a goal, with the recognition that they will not get past all liability issues, but they may improve the regulations for who can ride together and for how much. UTA suggests FTA regulations could be updated to address TNCs and encourage or even require private carriers to provide accessible rides. The FTA Section 5310 program could address accessible vehi- cle requirements across the country to make standards and service levels consistent, and create a process for private companies to pro- cure transit vans and minivans. Key Takeaways from UTA Notable Practices ⢠UTA rejuvenated three LCCs and used that subregional struc- ture to develop new coordinated plans, making sure local proj- ects and strategies were identified and could be funded. The Wasatch Front region is divided into three areasâSalt Lake-West Valley, Orem-Provo, and Ogden-Laytonâwith a local council for each area.
